In the months before I began seeking to enter Holy Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, I developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I no longer practice that devotion. But I would imagine that if the sentimentality and imagery could be removed from it, it would perhaps be useful.

What would be left of it? What would it be? That is an honest question.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. I have literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances over the years who have deep devotions to the Sacred Heart and NONE of them approach the devotion with any kind of rank sentimentality. They anchor their devotion to Jesus on the Cross and the lance piercing his side and from that side flows love and mercy the likes of which this world cannot present ANYTHING to compare.

That is their devotion. Some are more familiar with the desert Fathers and they take from that tradition. Others have connections to the ancient religious orders and very often their devotions use prayers from those traditions with respect to meditations on and prayers in consideration of the Sacred Hearts of both Jesus and Mary.

But it is Caritas that they revere: Jesus' Caritas.

Not some body part.

I am not denying that there are those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical and so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary but they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart.

Your note makes me wonder if you were not among the latter in your time as a Catholic...?

I have literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances over the years who have deep devotions to the Sacred Heart and NONE of them approach the devotion with any kind of rank sentimentality. They anchor their devotion to Jesus on the Cross and the lance piercing his side and from that side flows love and mercy the likes of which this world cannot present ANYTHING to compare.

That is their devotion. Some are more familiar with the desert Fathers and they take from that tradition. Others have connections to the ancient religious orders and very often their devotions use prayers from those traditions with respect to meditations on and prayers in consideration of the Sacred Hearts of both Jesus and Mary.

But it is Caritas that they revere: Jesus' Caritas.

Not some body part.

I am not denying that there are those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical and so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary but they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart.

Your note makes me wonder if you were not among the latter in your time as a Catholic...?

M.

Is there some reason why you feel compelled to engage into ad hominem speculation, rather than face the issue SR brought up, particularly with your admission of the existence of "those who seek signs and wonders...so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary" and the FACT that you couldn't produce any facts and figures for your assertion that "they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart" if your life depended on it (or does the Annuario Pontificio take a census and record such stats)? Is it the weakness of your argument? The void of facts in support of it?

The cult of the sacred heart enters history with Sr. Mary Margaret. All these vague and hazy "histories" of the devotion before her do not change that. All this desperation to link it to any and every reference to the heart in Scripture and the preaching of the Fathers reminds me of a cartoon I saw once where the queen bee had a crown and scepter resembling those of Queen Victoria in political cartoons of the previous century, and the bee spoke with a British accent often affected by those imitating what they perceived as QV's persona. The cult of the sacred heart resembles the theology of the Desert Fathers as much as the queen bee cartoon resembled Queen Victoria: a mere identity of terms. As the "Catholic Encyclopedia" puts it:

Quote

From the time of St. John and St. Paul there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, Who so loved the world as to give it His only-begotten Son, and to the love of Jesus, Who has so loved us as to deliver Himself up for us. But, accurately speaking, this is not the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as it pays no homage to the Heart of Jesus as the symbol of His love for us. From the earliest centuries, in accordance with the example of the Evangelist, Christ's open side and the mystery of blood and water were meditated upon, and the Church was beheld issuing from the side of Jesus, as Eve came forth from the side of Adam. But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart. It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart...

i.e. when stigmata start to show up

Quote

....Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, unless one would so regard the propagation of the devotion to the Five Wounds, in which the Wound in the Heart figured most prominently, and for the furtherance of which the Franciscans seem to have laboured....The image of the Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, which fact was largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches....Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Given the lack of any such devotion in the first millenium of the Church, one should quesiton its appearance in the second, as this doesn't explain nor vindicate it:

Quote

What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour's she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).

The idea of building devotions upon abstractions like "Jesus' love (I see no reason to speak Latin and say His "Caritas")" is a little strange in and of itself, but need not be dismissed for that reason. The "Divine Mercy" devotion is just as abstract, but doesn't have the creepy aspects of the cult of the Sacred Heart (that is, if you leave out Sr. Faustina's visions of Hell, etc.). But where there is smoke there is often fire, and one has to wonder about how such devotions get mixed up with "those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical" if said devotions are completely Orthodox.

I can't speak for your "literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances," as AFAIK I don't know them (but since I don't know those nameless Orthodox you cite so often in support of your views, I don't have much confidence in your charecterization as to the pietism of your acquaintances), but we are all agreed, SR points out something that exists. Deal with that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! Living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from Thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen.

I don't understand the fire. Is it the Holy Spirit? I would imagine that it's not simply His love, because wouldn't his Love simply be who he is? I find this prayer confusing. I just don't understand it.

If it is a good prayer, I really don't think I'm ready for it.

Maybe, though, you can tell me a little about it? I understand "that my will may be conformed," but I really can't understand the heart on fire part.

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

You all do realize that devotions are just that...devotions, right? I mean, it's not mandatory to participate in the Sacred Heart devotion any more than it is mandatory to pray the Rosary. Catholic spirituality is quite broad and there is not (and need not be) a one-size-fits-all devotion.

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

Further, why do you pray to it?

I don't pray to "it" any more than anyone I know prays to "it"...

As long as you all insist on defining things on your terms then there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Why did Jesus divide his body into flesh and blood? Is not blood an integral part of living flesh? Did he offer us dead things and tell us they bring life?...Why? What is the symbolism in THAT?

That is the kind of sense you all are making here: From Father Aidan on down the list of contributors.

This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary. It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess.

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ. If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.

This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary. It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess.

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ. If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.

It is pretty clear that these things are valiant attempts to keep the distance intact.

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

Further, why do you pray to it?

I don't pray to "it" any more than anyone I know prays to "it"...

As long as you all insist on defining things on your terms then there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Why did Jesus divide his body into flesh and blood? Is not blood an integral part of living flesh? Did he offer us dead things and tell us they bring life?...Why? What is the symbolism in THAT?

That is the kind of sense you all are making here: From Father Aidan on down the list of contributors.

I've given up on convincing them that we do not pray to Christ's literal heart since they are all hellbent on believing we do. My angle is that it shouldn't matter anyway since it is merely a devotion and thus not a doctrine or dogma. If a group of Catholics start venerating the Holy Left Pinky Toenail of Christ, that doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it, and certainly doesn't mean I am obligated to participate.

You all do realize that devotions are just that...devotions, right? I mean, it's not mandatory to participate in the Sacred Heart devotion any more than it is mandatory to pray the Rosary. Catholic spirituality is quite broad and there is not (and need not be) a one-size-fits-all devotion.

Do tell that to the legions of your coreligionists who find something wrong with you if you don't want to join in. Latinization has proven that the Vatican is one-size-fits-all to the core.

And you don't have to be Orthodox (just Orthodox at heart maybe) to find the Sacred Heart devotions creepy, despite Papist's protestations to the contrary. I've known many of your Latin correligionists who take issue with it.

Less creepy, but no less mandatory despite disclaimers to the contrary, the cult of the Divine Mercy. With the insertion of Divine Mercy Sunday into the General Roman Calendar, how "volunatry" is it? I know plenty of its enthusiasts. Tell them its "not mandatory." Same with Eucharistic Adoration and the Holy Hour-you would think that Christ insituted at the Last Supper the way many of your coreligionists carry on about it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"

The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"

All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas....

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"

All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas....

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Would you actually care to correct him rather than just laugh him off?

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Would you actually care to correct him rather than just laugh him off?[/quote]

I have. We all have here. I apologize for the frustration that occurs when we are all called stupid and liars: without using the words of course.

And of course it is all right here on this venue to mock and accuse Catholic saints of insanity.

PS: I have posted the primary encyclical for the liturgical celebration of the Sacred Heart MULTIPLE times here on this venue. Nobody ever even comments. Another waste of time. Faster to point and say BUNKO...at least after the 50th or 60th time of explaining and documenting what is real.

(b) The question lies between the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart; whether the object of the devotion is the Heart of flesh, as such, or the love of Jesus Christ metaphorically signified by the word heart; or the Heart of flesh, but as symbol of the emotional and moral life of Jesus, and especially His love for us. We reply that worship is rightly paid to the Heart of flesh, inasmuch as the latter symbolizes and recalls the love of Jesus, and His emotional and moral life.

The whole explanation can be summed up in Catholic terms that the heart of flesh of Jesus is an icon of the love of Jesus and of His emotional and moral life.

Quote

But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart.(2) It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart.

(same source)

Also, the source states that the devotion as such only started, at earliest, in the 11th century, therefore after Rome left the Catholic Church.

Quote

It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries.

Finally, it affirms it was created exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Roman see.

Therefore we can say without any mistake:

1) Even if Rome were still in the Church this would not be a Catholic devotion, but a local one;2) It is not something traditional in Christian asceticism and mysticism, but a medieval inovation;3) Many Catholic mystics, Athonite elders and saints warn against over-emotional devotions and the kind of vision that originated this one;4) The theological basis that the heart of Jesus is an icon of the love of Jesus has no basis on traditional iconography not in patristic writings where "heart" is the core of the being and not the center of its emotions, a symbology that is Western and medieval.

For all this, I think it is sure to say that the devotion, as it exists today, is not Catholic at all.

It could be if;

1) the heart acquired its traditional patristic sense of being the center of the being; emotions are together with rational thoughts in the concept of 'mind';2) the human heart of Jesus was not mixed with this philosophical concept of heart;Not even when we have icons of abstract concepts (Hagia Sophia) we dissociate it from the whole being of Christ. Christ is Wisdom, God - the whole God - is love, not just His heart. 3) the heart of Jesus, the center and essence of His being would rightfully be represented by the icons of His life, Passion and Resurrection; at most expressed in His Uncreated Light, as a radiance of his Heart.

Finally, there is an issue that I haven't seen being brought up yet, but there is room for future heresies and schisms there. If Jesus has two natures, two wills, does He have one or two Hearts in the patristic sense of the word? Is there a center of His divine being and a center of his human being, or like these are united under one Person, it is this Person that has One Heart? And therefore, these two natures and wills are united over one Heart?

« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 01:22:31 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Fr. Aidan is spot on: the very citation of the "Catholic Encyclopedia" of one of your "visionaries" speaking about the pulsations of the Sacred Heart that she alleged to have felt by laying her head on the Lord's breast quite explicitely make clear that they were talking about the physical organ.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary. It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess.

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ. If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.

It is pretty clear that these things are valiant attempts to keep the distance intact.

That is how you contain a plague.

We will pray for you all to receive discernment.

When someone is talking about feeling "pulsations" in a chest, and speaking of "the Heart of Flesh," yes, they are talking about a body part. If you do not understand, consult a dictionary.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote

Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions. Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote

Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions. Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.

Once again an encyclopedia is not a good place to go to find the Church's formal teaching on a subject.

It may be good for discussion purposes and in some cases it is excellent for looking at historical definitions by the LAITY but beyond that it is not something that I lean on for catechesis.

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.[/color]

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

I was being rhetorical anyway. It would seem exceedingly scholastic to go this far as to fully define from which nature and to what extent His love proceeds.

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

It seems that if to love is to will the Good, and Christ has two wills, then he must have both a human and a divine love.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left". What if it were in the first half of the 11th century? Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote

Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions. Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.

Once again an encyclopedia is not a good place to go to find the Church's formal teaching on a subject.

It may be good for discussion purposes and in some cases it is excellent for looking at historical definitions by the LAITY but beyond that it is not something that I lean on for catechesis.

That is fine, because we have no interest in being catechized into Sacred Heart devotion. We need to see only enough to know not to go there. The "Catholic Encyclopedia," with your "magisterium's" "imprimaturs" and "nihil obstat" more than suffices.

Beyond the truth known through Existentialism, that the Other always remains objective, never becoming subjective; what you seem to demand we engage in to find out the "truth of the Sacred Heart as I know it" begs the question of when it would end:trantric exercises, Budhdhist meditation, Hindu yoga, Muslim prayer, Jewish Halaka, etc. etc. etc. -where would it end? Why should we privilege your devotion over all others, to set aside our Orthodoxy to try to experience something which we feel alien to Orthodoxy, particularly when your authorities, like the "Catholic Encyclopedia," only confirm our cause for concern?

Perhaps you may demand it, because we criticize the devotion in question. Well, for one thing, putting it on an Orthodox forum in "Orthodox-Other Chrisitian Discussion" is going to get some discussion, and we're going to have to tell it like we see it. I've often criticized Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart images in Orthodox contexts (my old Church had banners from before the return to Orthodoxy: you could see that the robes had been painted in to cover the hearts), but doing that in a Vatican institution would be out of place. Except if the topic of discussion is differences between Orthodoxy and the Vatican, or if it is being claimed "we're all the same."

I've been in many churches with sacred heart statues. I've never been in a Hindu temple, because they require you take your shoes off in honor of the idols inside. If I had to venerate the sacred heart, I might have to avoid such churches. As it is, I just focus elsewhere.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.

What the encyclopedia describes is far more sound. There are references to the love of Christ (obviously) and to the concept of heart during the first millenia but which have no direct link to a devotion that was created in the 11th-12th century in Rome. Any association of the devotion with texts about "heart" and "love" are just projections of meaning onto the past, not unlikely people who say Jesus was the first Marxist.

Also, the references are very clear that the devotion is both to the spiritual heart and to the physical heart, the latter being like an "icon" of the former.

The devotion itself only gained popularity after a vision that for all standards, including those of Rome in the 1st millenium, would be considered a demonic illusion. The nun herself was more loyal to tradition by willing to keep it a secret and not trust it too much, but her superiors - according to the text you brought - wanted to affront "protetestants and rationalists" something that would bring them offense. *That* if it were an influencing criteria, is not a spiritual reason to accept a vision.

From an Orthodox Catholic point of view, I see positive and negative potentials there.

From the positive side, it is contemplation of the concept of heart, of the infinite love of Christ.

From the negative side, it does take from the forefront the Gospel revelation that God - the whole God and not just a part - is love. That being true - and we know it is - then the visible symbol of God's love is not the heart of Jesus, part of the incarnated God Who is love, but Jesus Himself, in all His life and body, passion and resurrection.

As it exists today, the devotion looks a lot like the condemned heresy of name worshippers, who out of a misguided love for the name of God, and similar projections onto past references, actually associated to the *name* that which was proper to the *whole* God.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about. Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart. That reference does not indicate that I worship or venerate a body part.

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.

What the encyclopedia describes is far more sound. There are references to the love of Christ (obviously) and to the concept of heart during the first millenia but which have no direct link to a devotion that was created in the 11th-12th century in Rome. Any association of the devotion with texts about "heart" and "love" are just projections of meaning onto the past, not unlikely people who say Jesus was the first Marxist.

Also, the references are very clear that the devotion is both to the spiritual heart and to the physical heart, the latter being like an "icon" of the former.

The devotion itself only gained popularity after a vision that for all standards, including those of Rome in the 1st millenium, would be considered a demonic illusion. The nun herself was more loyal to tradition by willing to keep it a secret and not trust it too much, but her superiors - according to the text you brought - wanted to affront "protetestants and rationalists" something that would bring them offense. *That* if it were an influencing criteria, is not a spiritual reason to accept a vision.

From an Orthodox Catholic point of view, I see positive and negative potentials there.

From the positive side, it is contemplation of the concept of heart, of the infinite love of Christ.

From the negative side, it does take from the forefront the Gospel revelation that God - the whole God and not just a part - is love. That being true - and we know it is - then the visible symbol of God's love is not the heart of Jesus, part of the incarnated God Who is love, but Jesus Himself, in all His life and body, passion and resurrection.

As it exists today, the devotion looks a lot like the condemned heresy of name worshippers, who out of a misguided love for the name of God, and similar projections onto past references, actually associated to the *name* that which was proper to the *whole* God.

The difference here is that God is love. There is no distance between God and his love.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about. Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart. That reference does not indicate that I worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about. Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then? A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about. Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then? A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Not only that. The infallible Pope himself declares it is worship to a body part of Christ and although he does not recommend, he says it is proper to render the same worship to other body parts as well such as the Divine Ankle, the Sacred Elbow or the Holy Right Kidney.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about. Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart. That reference does not indicate that I worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.